angelic moo

I wrote elswehere that the Supreme Court's decision in Javellana in 1973 destroyed its reputation and signaled the Court's subservience to the executive branch of government. More than three decades later, the Arroyo administration elevated the their own attempt to revise the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The Court was given an opportunity to reprise its role in 1973 and approve a shift to a parliamentary form of government despite the apparent defects in manner the Constitution is amended. When the Court deliberated on Lambino , I suggested that a ruling in favor of the initiative would have been politically safe route; it will shield the Court from heat. I predicted that ruling against initiative would open the Court to vilification by the other branches of government. Indeed, the Speaker of the House aattacked the Supreme Court and went so far as to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Justices who voted against the initiative claiming the Supreme Court d...

Pro-initiative advocates presented a disturbing suggeston that was featured in the news recently ostensibly in support of the floundering case on initiative now pending with the Supreme Court (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153). The Manila Standard reported that Deans Danilo Fariñas of the University of Baguio and Hermogenes Decano of the University of Pangasinan claimed “there is no distinction between the terms amendment and revision of the 1987 Constitution because they are “understood to be one and the same” by the people, who are considered the sovereign authors of the fundamental law of the land.” The lawyers also said that even law practitioners have agreed to define the words “amend” and “revise” as pertaining to “changes.” Fariñas and Decano said they found the “technical distinctions unnecessary” because even the US Federal Constitution from which the Philippine Constitution extensively adopted its principles, makes no mention of the word revision as distinct from amend...